Week 1 Lesson Plan
The reading worksheet file can be found here.
The participation form can be found here.
To navigate to individual lesson plans:
Wednesday, May 15th - Science Communication (#1/28 of class):
Learning Objectives:Resources: Slides; Knowledge Prompts; Bem article; SciComm papers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7); Yong (2019); Brain Labeling Worksheet; Brain Labeling Worksheet Key; Class Generated SciComm Principles. Here were my instructor notes going into the Bem critique, Knowledge gallery walk, and Sci Comm Think Pair Share.
- LO1: Begin to build a supportive classroom culture
- Introduction to Instructor & Icebreaker
- Discussion of syllabus, goals, and class norms
- LO2: Define our approach to academic articles and the pursuit of scientific knowledge and apply this to an article critique
- Gallery Walk of various media on knowledge
- Critique of Bem (2011)
- LO3: Describe principles of good science communication
- Think Pair Share of articles on science communication
- Apply to Yong (2019)
- LO4: Identify brain regions that we will commonly come across in class
- Worksheet on brain regions
Readings:
- None - we will read some articles in class!
►Return to the top of the page
Thursday, May 16th - Cognitive Methods (#2/28 of class):
Learning Objectives:Resources: Slides, Methodology Pros/Cons (Instructor Notes, Purves et al. Table on Pros/Cons), Instructor Notes on TED talk & Yong (2019)
- LO1: Continue to build a supportive classroom culture & discuss science communication.
- Another Icebreaker: Get to know each other as scholars and people
- Tweet summaries via the curated worksheet
- Apply our Class Generated SciComm Principles to Yong (2019) and Ben Goldacre's TED talk
- LO2: Describe the advantages and disadvantages, as well as basic mechanisms of, each methodology
- Work in pairs to come up with the pros and cons of each methodology based off textbook reading
- Team Jeopardy style check for understanding with multiple choice questions
- LO3: Summarize the types of questions typically answered with each methodology
- Team Jeopardy style check for understanding with multiple choice questions
- In teams, pose hypothetical studies with specific methodologies for particular questions - did not get to
- If there's time: work on vignettes as teams - did not get to
- LO4: Assess current problems within psychological methodology such as WEIRD samples and the lack of open science
- More Jeopardy style check for understanding questions on the open science reading - did not get to
- Thought probe on how WEIRD samples affects cognitive psychology - did not get to
Chapter & Articles
- Gazzaniga, M., Ivy, R.B., Mangum, G.R. (2008). Methods of Cognitive Neuroscience. In: Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind, pp. 110-162. New York City: W.W. Norton & Company Third Edition. PDF here
- Lab Manual PDF here.
- Darling, N. (2017). Attracting WEIRD Samples. Retrieved from Psychology Today website: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thinking-about-kids/201710/attracting-weird-samples PDF here
- Goldacre, B. (2011). Battling bad science. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science
- None
►Return to the top of the page
Friday, May 17th - Perception (#3/28 of class):
Learning Objectives:Resources: Slides (slides not shown in class are 'hidden' in the pptx), Study Vignettes, Depth Perception (worksheet not used), Sample Gruters Reading Worksheet
- LO1: Continue to build a supportive classroom culture & discuss open science & methodology used for different studies.
- In teams, fill out the study vignettes
- Jeopardy style check for understanding questions on the open science reading
- Thought probe on how WEIRD samples affects cognitive psychology - inside minute paper
- LO2: Describe some basic perceptual perspectives and principles.
- Discuss 4 perspectives on perception: learning-focused (Helmholtz, Statistical Learning, Bayesian) and intrinsic (Gestalt)
- If there's time, handout on depth perception cues - did not get to
- LO3: Deconstruct and analyze the findings of an academic journal article.
- Break off into pairs and apply the reading worksheet to Gruters et al. (2018)
- Come together as a class to discuss the main takeaways of the Gruters paper - did not get to
- LO4: Compare and contrast models of science communication. - did not get to
- Generate main takeaways from Ed Yong's coverage of the Gruters et al. (2018) article; what is missing when compared to our reading worksheets?
- Compare Dean (2018) to Yong (2018) - how do they differ? Do these pieces fit our list of good SciComm?
Article:
Beginning with this lesson plan, I asked how accessible & interesting students found each article on a scale of 1-5 (Not At All Accessible/Interesting vs. Very Accessible/Interesting). Gruters Accessibility (N=8) M = 3.75, SD = 1.16; Interesting M = 3.25, SD = 0.71.
- Gruters, K. G., Murphy, D. L. K., Jenson, C. D., Smith, D. W., Shera, C. A., & Groh, J. M. (2018). The eardrums move when the eyes move: A multisensory effect on the mechanics of hearing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(6), E1309–E1318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717948115. PDF here
- Yong, E. (2018, January 23). When Your Eyes Move, So Do Your Eardrums. Retrieved from The Atlantic website: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/when-your-eyes-move-so-do-your-eardrums/551237/. PDF here
- Dean, S. (2018, January 25). Our Eye Movements Also Move Eardrums, And Nobody Knows Why. Retrieved from https://www.sciencealert.com/eye-movements-cause-vibrations-eardrums-hearing-weird-brain. PDF here
- In class (not homework for today): Reading worksheet - we will fill this out in class for this one day only.